JUDGMENT : VIRENDER SINGH, J. I.A. No. 2016 of 2015 1. In the instant application, applicant-appellant is seeking condonation of 82 days' delay in filing the accompanied Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 125 of 2015 impugning the order dated 31.10.2014 handed down in W.P.(S) No. 1436/2005 whereby, the writ petition filed by him stands dismissed. For the reasons carved out in the application and there being no objection from Mr. Manish Mishra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, we hereby condone the delay. I.A. No. 2016 of 2015 stands disposed of accordingly. L.P.A. No. 125 of 2015 Appellant-Writ Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'petitioner') got an appointment on daily wages on 04.05.2012 with the respondent institution under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme on account of death of his father, who died on 3rd May, 1980, when admittedly, the petitioner was minor. Subsequently, the records regarding appointment of the petitioner were verified pursuant to the direction of the High Court in W.P.(S) No. 680 of 2002, filed by one Mithilesh Kumar, who had projected that certain illegal and irregular appointments were made in the respondent institute. Thereafter, show cause notice was served upon the petitioner for termination of his services on the ground that his father had already been dismissed from service in the year 1977 before his death, to which the petitioner responded, but the same did not find favour with the respondent institute, which led to passing of the order under Memo No. NIT(E) 344/05 dated 17.02.2005. Aggrieved thereof, he knocked the door of Writ Court through the medium of W.P.(S) No. 1436 of 2005, which now stands dismissed. Hence, the instant appeal. 2. Heard learned counsel for both the sides. 3. In our considered view, petitioner has no case at all inasmuch he got the appointment on daily wages under Compassionate Appointment Scheme on account of death of his father, the bread earner, in harness, which fact, ultimately, found to be incorrect, as his father was dismissed from service somewhere in 1977 and died three years thereafter. Admittedly, it was not a case of death in harness, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate ground. The very foundation of the appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme is sandy. Admittedly, it was not a case of death in harness, therefore, the petitioner could not be appointed on compassionate ground. The very foundation of the appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme is sandy. Not only that, in another case of one Santosh Mandal, who was also appointed in similar circumstances on 08.12.2001 on the death of his father, who was a Medical Attendant, his services were terminated and the termination of the said petitioner was upheld by this Court observing that the said appointment on compassionate ground could not have been sustained. Learned Writ Court has considered all these aspects in detail while dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner and we do not find any reason to disturb the well reasoned order. 4. Viewed thus, it is not a case warranting interference of this Court. Resultantly, the instant appeal merits dismissal. Ordered accordingly.